| Introducing Inroads | |
Introducing Inroads #7 | ||
|
We try to make inroads into the intellectual solitudes that divide us. Our seventh issue tackles two such cleavages. The first cleavage is addressed in the articles on the main theme of this issue, the divisions caused by the electoral system. Our decision to tackle electoral reform was prompted by the results of the 1997 federal election. The cover depicts the perverse effects of our electoral system on the outcome: how it regionalizes political party representation in Parliament. Yet discussion of electoral reform has yet to begin in this country. This is something that, in a small way, we hope to change. The issues raised by electoral reform transcend the question of regional representation. The type of electoral system affects not only who sits in Parliament but the kinds of issues that enter policy debate—and the policies that emerge. This is not a simple matter; it requires some familiarity with technical differences between electoral systems. These articles allow the reader to gain that familiarity, but without losing sight of the policy implications. Two Inroads editors favour proportional representation (PR); John Richards remains sceptical due to the potential for PR to reduce the electorate’s ability to hold governments accountable. We all agree, however, that the time has come for a public debate. Among the few democratic countries still using the first-past-the-post system (FPTP), Canada is the only one not debating replacing it. Even in the U.S., as Rob Richie and Steven Hill show, PR systems are being discussed and, at the local level, tested. Britain, which gave the world FPTP, has, as Andrew Reynolds’ article reveals, adopted PR for electing members to the European Parliament and the new assemblies of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and is considering it for electing members to the hallowed halls of Westminster. The contributors are specialists and practitioners in this country and abroad; each brings a unique perspective or focuses on unique experiences. Henry Milner opens the debate with a pitch for Canada going the way of New Zealand and adopting the German-style PR system known as mixed-member proportional (MMP). He illustrates the value of PR by analyzing Quebec: what would have happened if Quebec had adopted a form of PR, as René Lévesque tried to do in the early 1980s? Donley Studlar puts the debate in historical context and explains why women and minorities have good reason to seek electoral reform. Kent Weaver and Tom Flanagan also present cases for reform, though of a more modest nature. Weaver’s scheme draws inspiration from that recommended by the Pepin-Robarts Commission, while Flanagan suggests following the Australian road. Tom Kent makes the case for PR as part of a wider set of changes needed to revitalize our political institutions. And Richard Katz offers some pertinent observations on the downside of the various alternatives. An added feature is Peter Aimer’s article on New Zealand, a fascinating political saga culminating in 1996 when the country implemented MMP. A senior New Zealand political scientist, Aimer shows how developing social forces paved the way for electoral reform—specifically how a two-party system fragmenting into a multi-party format proved more compatible with a proportional electoral system—a description that fits Canada like a glove. The second cleavage tackled in this issue is that of language, a subject discussed in earlier issues but never as thoroughly. The theory of language as a public good is directly addressed in an interesting exchange selected by Harvey Schachter from the Inroads Listserve. Of course, to talk about language in this country is to talk about Quebec. In what is becoming a regular feature, playwright and Inroads editor Arthur Milner convenes a roundtable discussion, this time of five prominent and outspoken anglophone Quebecers — Howard Greenfield, Julius Grey, Peter Scowen, Carolyn Sharp and Dermod Travis. Their views on the role of the linguistic minority in Quebec reveal a richness and complexity of thinking seldom seen in English-speaking Quebec. The attitudes of anglophone members of Quebec’s National Assembly also reflect a richness and complexity. Garth Stevenson interviewed 28 past and present MNAs. Though torn between their constituents’ view of the world and the radically different view among the majority of francophone Quebecers, they were able to win benefits for their community and contribute constructively to the broader interests of the province. Almost without exception, they cherished their years in the National Assembly. This judgment stands in stark contrast to the unrelentingly negative attitude towards Quebec in the English media, as portrayed in Gérald Leblanc’s disturbing account of Quebec bashing in the English Canadian press. Leblanc, a veteran reporter who covers English Canada for La Presse, argues that, since 1995, there has been a qualitative change in the way the English Canadian media treat Quebec. Objectivity has given way to militant opposition. The irony is that it is only in Quebec that one can regularly read both sides of the federalist versus sovereignist story in the mainstream media. In this issue readers have the opportunity to get acquainted with three influential Quebec authors through excerpts of their work translated by John Richards. The first is Pierre Foglia. Virtually unknown outside Quebec, he is probably the province’s most read columnist. As the three selected columns illustrate, he steps on politically correct toes. Refusing to be confined to a beat, Foglia writes on politics, culture, sports and the lives of ordinary people. Rejecting totally the public profile of an opinion leader, Foglia would probably be uncomfortable in the company of the two others whose texts appear in translation. Both Fernand Dumont and Léon Dion were self-conscious leaders of Quebec public opinion; coincidentally, both died in 1997. While Dion described himself as a fédéraliste fatigué, Dumont was a sovereignist, perhaps the most important intellectual father of contemporary Quebec nationalism. The selected passages explore the profound and complex link between the French language and the aspirations of Quebec people. They are required reading for those who tend to see only economic self-interest in Quebec’s political demands. Although on different political sides, they agreed that the greatest obstacle to a working relationship between English-speaking Canadians and francophones in Quebec came from the mistaken idea that language policy could be resolved by coast-to-coast official bilingualism. History cannot be undone; French will never be a vibrant language in daily use beyond Quebec and the bilingual belt stretching from Sudbury to Acadia. Official bilingualism, in which everyone is free to use either language at will, denies this basic truth while it denies francophone Quebecers the ability to preserve Montreal as a majority francophone city. Were Montreal ever to cease being a majority francophone city, it would destroy the heart and soul of francophone culture on this continent. Dumont’s mantle has been picked up by Gary Caldwell, his collaborator for many years at the Quebec Institute for the Study of Culture. Caldwell, who many years ago left Ontario to make Quebec his home, laments the decay of civil society, the sphere of life that resonates to the beat of neither the state nor the market. For him, external cultural influences are not the prime culprit for the breakdown of civil society in Quebec. The culprit is the technocracy which has stifled the independence of institutions of civil society such as local schools, credit unions and municipal government. Inroads 7 begins with John Richards’ moving account of life in Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh, and its tragic political history. The question of language is not absent from this story. The carnage leading to secession of Bangladesh in 1971 is a cautionary tale about the importance of language in determining loyalties. In our last issue we noted that a journal published only once a year is a less than ideal forum for stimulating dialogue on current events. To address this problem, we announced the establishment of our Web site: http://www.inroadsjournal.ca/ We raised the idea of using the site to post readers’ letters and responses, to create an electronic forum for discussion of issues raised in print. In September 1997, thanks to Harvey Schachter, we went one step further, setting up the Inroads Listserve. Many readers are subscribers to the Listserve and have contributed to its lively discussions. From the moment the Calgary Accord was announced last fall, the just-established Inroads-L discussion group reverberated with debate as to the value or futility of the venture. With a little pride, we take credit for bringing together people of widely varying political philosophies, and linking individuals from within and without Quebec. As an Inroads reader, you are invited to join the Inroads-L discussion group. Send an e-mail note to: listserv@post.queensu.ca with your name, as in the following: subscribe inroads-l John A. MacDonald —and by all means, join the discussion. |
 |
 Return to Contents To see if copies of this issue are available, go to the Back Issue page |
